I hope to God it’s B. I think it’s B. Can I phone a friend?
Better yet, poll the audience. The “majority” can’t be wrong…
Yes, “audience” is the way to go; they’ll never let you down.
If you listen to what all the libtards and their lackies in the media are saying, the answer would be A because all I hear is sporting and hunting, sporting and hunting, sporting and hunting.
It must be all about sporting and hunting.
Yup. A, final answer.
It has to be A, right? I mean, politicians are very concerned about protecting hunting and sport, and they always have our best interests at heart. Even if we don’t know what our best interest is.
I don’t get it…………….
Oh come on. We know there really isn ‘t a 2A. It was only added in by a secret cabal of Masons in the 1840s in an attempted conspiracy to overthrow the real America the Founding Mothers created which is a socialist vegan commune.
Makes me proud to be a Mason!
They did it inbetween pancake breakfasts.
I’m a pancake man too. Maybe I should apply to join the Masons.
My dad (rip) was a 32nd degree Mason not that I know what that means.
I think all Masons with the 32th degree have to
help guard the hoard of gold at the top of the
Washington Monument (to keep it safe from
Nick Cage). That or they helped fake the moon landings.
I’ve also heard that the Masons are responsible
for mad-cow disease in Europe. This is to
facilitate domination of Europe via American
steak houses.
The real Incendiary part would be A being the correct answer….
“The real Incendiary part would be A being the correct answer…”
Obama is working on that.
I can’t believe another satire-filled reply has been swallowed by the web filter.
I swear there’s a quality algorithm. The more potentially amusing and well-thought out, the less likely it is to get posted.
I feel for you, but I don’t know how you hit the filter so often. I only average about one completely inexplicable filtering every 7-10 days. It seems as if you’re double that, or better.
I’m not sure about Aharon, but I get ‘disappeared’ about once every 10 posts. Been like that for several months. I’m apparently ‘ok’ enough to not require captcha, and have been here on and off since month 2ish.
Happens 50% of the time with certain authors whom I’ve taken to task for faulty scientific method. I’m going to pretend that’s just a coincidence.
Ummmm, what? Where did this come from to begin with?
I hear more and more about our right to fish and hunt. President Obama, Diane Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Cuomo all keep talking about our rights to fish and hunt so, Duh!, it has to be A. They’re the ones who, like, know all about the Constitution and stuff.
Speaking of, after all the anti-2A stuff blows over, we should create an amendment that guarantees the right to hunt and fish, so that we can tell PETA to go to hell!
The 2nd Amendment(part II) shall read: the right to keep and bear arms and the right to hunt any PETA member who says or indicates that you should not hunt animals for food and instead should buy meat from the grocery store where it is made. This will cull and decrease some of the gross stupidity in today’s society!!!!
A is worded wrong, its arm bears not bear arms. Bears like to hunt and fish therfore they must be armed.
C: none of the above.
Only the government can be trusted with guns. Duh.
I get this one from gun-grabbers all the time
“I dont want to infringe on your right to hunt…”
Thats nice and all….but motherfuc*er I dont hunt; I own my guns because I can and they are for whatever purpose I want that is legally and morally correct.
I dont want you to infringe on my constitution, how about that gungrabber?
I talked to a fairly articulate guy the other day who started with “I support the 2nd Amendment, but, ….. blah, blah, self-righteousness, sheepleness, etc.” I simply told him that had he placed a period in there before the “but” and stopped talking I would respect his right to a 1st Amendment, a 3rd Amendment, a 4th Amendment, etc. BUT, since you decided to “qualify” your support to one of our God given rights, I refute your right to retain any of the others.
OK, I’ll play, but I’ll keep it really simple.
A bunch of guys we call our “founding fathers” were so frustrated with their government that they declared their independence. Declaring independence was an act that could be considered treason by their government, and though it was risking punishment by death, they did it anyway. The government from which they wanted independence did, in fact, view it negatively, so that government sent its military to preserve the colonial order. War happened. Lots of people died, but our founders prevailed over the government’s army.
So to recap, a free people that hated their government asked for their freedom and received a war with the government army instead.
So when it comes to original intent there are actually three possibilities:
A. Liberal: After fighting off the government army, the founding fathers wrote the second amendment to guarantee that only the government army can have guns.
B. Liberal: Fighting off a government army is exhausting work, so the founding fathers codified the right to rest and relaxation in the form of hunting and fishing.
C. Realist: After a hard-won victory over a government army, the founding fathers said “Never Again.”
Win.
+1 🙂 🙂 🙂
Both are wrong. The correct reading is:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, except in sensitive areas such a schools.
We know it, not by reading the constitution, but by observing it in practice. Which tells us there must be an article in the constitution that allows certain government officials–facilitated by a cabal of nine henchmen–to insert such words and phrases as they please. It has to be written in secret code, however, and with invisible ink, so that common people reading the whole of the constitution cannot find it.
As a liberal, I would consider the government intrusion of taking my property without due process unacceptable and I embrace all of the rights and freedoms granted by the Constitution to all citizens. As a conservative, I would hope the changes sought by the civilian disarmament organizations can be stopped to preserve our freedom.
What if they took it after the rigamarole of due process?….
I bet you most from would pick B. B is a just a excuse by gun grabbers no argument.
I understand every word you used, but the order in which you used them completely freakin’ baffles me.
This is actually more helpful than simple farce showing the common misconception of the spirit of the 2A. It is a good way to illustrate that the mention of a militia in the (real) 2A does not constrain the RKBA to militia members. The fact that A and B are not exclusive shows that the militia clause need not constrain the application of the right to keep and bear arms.
Moreover, I’ve always tried to argue that the 2A gives pretty clear guidance that we will not long remain free without a militia. Pointing that out can have a chilling effect on a reasonable debate opponent who is trying to argue that the 2A applies only to the militia. It’s fun to say, “Thanks for bringing up the militia. Not only is the militia clause not restrictive in the application of the RKBA; our constitution reckons we must have a militia as a prerequisite to freedom. Shall we get started and form one?”
Heck, I’ll just quote the DC US Court of Appealsdecision upheld by SCOTUS in Heller:
“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
understood as resistance to either private lawlessnes or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the
important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient
for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right
facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be
barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth
for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s
enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia.”
Pg 53
The modern handgun—and for that matter the rifle and
long-barreled shotgun—is undoubtedly quite improved over its
colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant
of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller’s standards.
Pistols certainly bear “some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” They are
also in “common use” today, and probably far more so than in
1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only
colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by
the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free
speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown
to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the
Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a
“search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the
modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo
v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth
Amendment standards to thermal imaging search).
I hope to God it’s B. I think it’s B. Can I phone a friend?
Better yet, poll the audience. The “majority” can’t be wrong…
Yes, “audience” is the way to go; they’ll never let you down.
If you listen to what all the libtards and their lackies in the media are saying, the answer would be A because all I hear is sporting and hunting, sporting and hunting, sporting and hunting.
It must be all about sporting and hunting.
Yup. A, final answer.
It has to be A, right? I mean, politicians are very concerned about protecting hunting and sport, and they always have our best interests at heart. Even if we don’t know what our best interest is.
I don’t get it…………….
Oh come on. We know there really isn ‘t a 2A. It was only added in by a secret cabal of Masons in the 1840s in an attempted conspiracy to overthrow the real America the Founding Mothers created which is a socialist vegan commune.
Makes me proud to be a Mason!
They did it inbetween pancake breakfasts.
I’m a pancake man too. Maybe I should apply to join the Masons.
My dad (rip) was a 32nd degree Mason not that I know what that means.
I think all Masons with the 32th degree have to
help guard the hoard of gold at the top of the
Washington Monument (to keep it safe from
Nick Cage). That or they helped fake the moon landings.
I’ve also heard that the Masons are responsible
for mad-cow disease in Europe. This is to
facilitate domination of Europe via American
steak houses.
The real Incendiary part would be A being the correct answer….
“The real Incendiary part would be A being the correct answer…”
Obama is working on that.
I can’t believe another satire-filled reply has been swallowed by the web filter.
I swear there’s a quality algorithm. The more potentially amusing and well-thought out, the less likely it is to get posted.
I feel for you, but I don’t know how you hit the filter so often. I only average about one completely inexplicable filtering every 7-10 days. It seems as if you’re double that, or better.
I’m not sure about Aharon, but I get ‘disappeared’ about once every 10 posts. Been like that for several months. I’m apparently ‘ok’ enough to not require captcha, and have been here on and off since month 2ish.
Happens 50% of the time with certain authors whom I’ve taken to task for faulty scientific method. I’m going to pretend that’s just a coincidence.
Ummmm, what? Where did this come from to begin with?
I hear more and more about our right to fish and hunt. President Obama, Diane Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Cuomo all keep talking about our rights to fish and hunt so, Duh!, it has to be A. They’re the ones who, like, know all about the Constitution and stuff.
Speaking of, after all the anti-2A stuff blows over, we should create an amendment that guarantees the right to hunt and fish, so that we can tell PETA to go to hell!
The 2nd Amendment(part II) shall read: the right to keep and bear arms and the right to hunt any PETA member who says or indicates that you should not hunt animals for food and instead should buy meat from the grocery store where it is made. This will cull and decrease some of the gross stupidity in today’s society!!!!
A is worded wrong, its arm bears not bear arms. Bears like to hunt and fish therfore they must be armed.
C: none of the above.
Only the government can be trusted with guns. Duh.
I get this one from gun-grabbers all the time
“I dont want to infringe on your right to hunt…”
Thats nice and all….but motherfuc*er I dont hunt; I own my guns because I can and they are for whatever purpose I want that is legally and morally correct.
I dont want you to infringe on my constitution, how about that gungrabber?
I talked to a fairly articulate guy the other day who started with “I support the 2nd Amendment, but, ….. blah, blah, self-righteousness, sheepleness, etc.” I simply told him that had he placed a period in there before the “but” and stopped talking I would respect his right to a 1st Amendment, a 3rd Amendment, a 4th Amendment, etc. BUT, since you decided to “qualify” your support to one of our God given rights, I refute your right to retain any of the others.
OK, I’ll play, but I’ll keep it really simple.
A bunch of guys we call our “founding fathers” were so frustrated with their government that they declared their independence. Declaring independence was an act that could be considered treason by their government, and though it was risking punishment by death, they did it anyway. The government from which they wanted independence did, in fact, view it negatively, so that government sent its military to preserve the colonial order. War happened. Lots of people died, but our founders prevailed over the government’s army.
So to recap, a free people that hated their government asked for their freedom and received a war with the government army instead.
So when it comes to original intent there are actually three possibilities:
A. Liberal: After fighting off the government army, the founding fathers wrote the second amendment to guarantee that only the government army can have guns.
B. Liberal: Fighting off a government army is exhausting work, so the founding fathers codified the right to rest and relaxation in the form of hunting and fishing.
C. Realist: After a hard-won victory over a government army, the founding fathers said “Never Again.”
Win.
+1 🙂 🙂 🙂
Both are wrong. The correct reading is:
We know it, not by reading the constitution, but by observing it in practice. Which tells us there must be an article in the constitution that allows certain government officials–facilitated by a cabal of nine henchmen–to insert such words and phrases as they please. It has to be written in secret code, however, and with invisible ink, so that common people reading the whole of the constitution cannot find it.
As a liberal, I would consider the government intrusion of taking my property without due process unacceptable and I embrace all of the rights and freedoms granted by the Constitution to all citizens. As a conservative, I would hope the changes sought by the civilian disarmament organizations can be stopped to preserve our freedom.
What if they took it after the rigamarole of due process?….
I bet you most from would pick B. B is a just a excuse by gun grabbers no argument.
I understand every word you used, but the order in which you used them completely freakin’ baffles me.
This is actually more helpful than simple farce showing the common misconception of the spirit of the 2A. It is a good way to illustrate that the mention of a militia in the (real) 2A does not constrain the RKBA to militia members. The fact that A and B are not exclusive shows that the militia clause need not constrain the application of the right to keep and bear arms.
Moreover, I’ve always tried to argue that the 2A gives pretty clear guidance that we will not long remain free without a militia. Pointing that out can have a chilling effect on a reasonable debate opponent who is trying to argue that the 2A applies only to the militia. It’s fun to say, “Thanks for bringing up the militia. Not only is the militia clause not restrictive in the application of the RKBA; our constitution reckons we must have a militia as a prerequisite to freedom. Shall we get started and form one?”
Heck, I’ll just quote the DC US Court of Appealsdecision upheld by SCOTUS in Heller:
“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
understood as resistance to either private lawlessnes or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the
important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient
for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right
facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be
barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth
for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s
enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia.”
Pg 53
The modern handgun—and for that matter the rifle and
long-barreled shotgun—is undoubtedly quite improved over its
colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant
of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller’s standards.
Pistols certainly bear “some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” They are
also in “common use” today, and probably far more so than in
1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only
colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by
the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free
speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown
to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the
Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a
“search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the
modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo
v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth
Amendment standards to thermal imaging search).
Comments are closed.